Countermeasure development method and system

ABSTRACT

An architecture is provided for incorporating systems-thinking and cognitive psychology. A simulation nodule partners with a systemizing nodule to develop a solution (a countermeasure) a problem that an opponent could apply to injure the entity. Problem-defining, solution-developing, weakness-exposing, and/or solution-revising steps can be conceptualized from the opponent&#39;s viewpoint thanks to a role-reversing nodule, defensive theories can be tested by a combat-imitating nodule, and conclusions can be confirmed via a reality-checking nodule.

This application claims priority under 35 USC 119 from U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/185,611, filed Jun. 10, 2009, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

“Virtual” and other types of simulators are routinely used during training sessions or other experience-seeking exercises. By simulating unfamiliar scenarios, people can be programmed to respond in an appropriate manner to similar situations when later encountered. Simulation technology allows a replication of realtime tension, whereby human participants remain more involved and in a more intense mindset.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A simulation architecture is provided that may prove especially useful when addressing not yet encountered concerns or threats, often generated through unfamiliar modes of thought. In a military situation, for example, centuries-worth of historical data on conventional warfare (e.g., soldiers wearing uniforms, civilian lives spared whenever possible, etc.) does little good when facing today's terrorists. In a business situation, products which integrate emerging technology cannot depend upon traditional business plans to guarantee commercial success. From the financial side, the framework of a bailout policy should not rest upon the same outline that caused the underlying crisis. And with respect to our planet's climate-change conditions, there are no handbooks on dealing with the environmental consequences of melting polar caps.

The architecture allows (and preferably requires) a situation to be comprehended as system of interacting events, whereby a larger pattern can be located among seemingly random acts. This approach dramatically expands the experience sphere beyond that of traditional training (where problem solution-generation is limited to known problems). The architecture prompts participants to see adversarial events as a system and to correspondingly create counter systems in response.

According to an aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture for a party aligned with an entity includes a simulation nodule and a systemization nodule. The simulation nodule includes an internal problem-defining node, an internal solution-developing node, an internal weakness-exposing node, an internal solution-evaluating node, and an internal solution-revising node. The problem-defining node defines a problem that an opponent could impose to injure the entity. The solution-developing node develops a solution to the problem defined by the problem-defining node. The weakness-exposing node exposes weaknesses in the solution developed by the solution-developing node. The solution-evaluating node evaluating the risk of the weaknesses in the solution exposed in the weakness-exposing node. The solution-revising node revises the solution to address the weaknesses exposed in the weakness-exposing node. The weakness-exposing node also exposes weaknesses in the solution revised by the solution-revising node. The solution-revising node, the weakness-exposing node, and the solution-evaluating node are cycled until risk accessed by the solution-evaluating node is acceptable to the entity. The systemization nodule incorporates systems-thinking tenets into one or more nodes of the simulation nodule.

According the another aspect of the invention, the systemization nodule includes: an interdependence-examination node that examines the interconnectedness of the objects and the interaction of their attributes; a pattern-deciphering node that deciphers the emergent properties that holistically arise from the objects' interconnection and the attributes' interaction; a goal ascertaining node that ascertains the goal or final state resulting from the emergent properties; an input/output determining node determines the objects, modifications, and/or changes that must enter/exit the system exploitation to reach specific goals; a transformation-tracing node that traces the transformation of inputs into outputs; an entropy-evaluation node that evaluates the disorder or randomness present during such transformation; a feedback-finding node that finds the feedback and regulation employed to insure predictable operation; a hierarchy-ranking node that ranks subsystems within their parent systems; a specialty-differentiating node that differentiates among specialized units and/or specialized functions; a convergence node that identifies alternate inputs that can achieve the same objectives; and a divergence node that identifies alternate objectives that can be attained from the same inputs.

According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture for a party aligned with an entity includes a simulation nodule and a systemization nodule, wherein: the simulation nodule develops a solution to a problem that an opponent could impose to injure the entity; the systemization nodule incorporates systems-thinking tenets into execution of the simulation nodule. The systemization nodule includes: an interdependence-examination node that examines the interconnectedness of the objects and the interaction of their attributes; a pattern-deciphering node that deciphers the emergent properties that holistically arise from the objects' interconnection and the attributes' interaction; a goal ascertaining node that ascertains the goal or final state resulting from the emergent properties; an input/output determining node that determines the objects, modifications, and/or changes that must enter/exit the system exploitation to reach specific goals; a transformation-tracing node that traces the transformation of inputs into outputs; an entropy-evaluation node that evaluates the disorder or randomness present during such transformation; a feedback-finding node that finds the feedback and regulation employed to insure predictable operation; a hierarchy-ranking node that ranks subsystems within their parent systems; a specialty-differentiating node that differentiates among specialized units and/or specialized functions; a convergence node that identifies alternate inputs that can achieve the same objectives; and a divergence node that identifies alternate objectives that can be attained from the same inputs.

According to yet another aspect of the invention a simulation architecture has a systemizing nodule that is executed during a/the problem-defining node of the simulation nodule.

According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture has a systemizing nodule that is executed during a data-organizing subnode of the problem-defining node.

According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a systemizing nodule that is executed during a/the solution-developing node of a simulation nodule.

According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a systemizing nodule that is executed during a problem-predicting subnode, a problem-preventing subnode, a problem-detecting subnode, a problem-neutralizing subnode, and/or a damage-mitigation subnode of the solution-developing node.

According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a systemizing nodule that is executed during a/the solution-revising node of the simulation nodule.

According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes systemizing nodule that is executed during a problem-predicting subnode, a problem-preventing subnode, a problem-detecting subnode, a problem-neutralizing subnode, and/or a damage-mitigation subnode of the solution-revising node.

According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture also may include a role-reversing nodule that aids the party in putting themselves mentally into the opponent's thought process, the role-reversing nodule being executed with one or more nodes of the simulation nodule.

According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a role-reversing nodule that includes a planning node, a scouting node, a resource-acquiring node, a building node, a training node, a deploying node, and/or an assessing node.

According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may have a role-reversing nodule that is executed during a/the problem-defining node of the simulation nodule.

According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a role-reversing nodule that is executed during a/the weakness-exposing node of the simulation nodule.

According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a conflict-imitating nodule that allows an issue to be played out in competitive setting, the conflict-imitating nodule being executed during one or more nodes of the simulation nodule.

According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may have the conflict-imitating nodule include a team-assignment node, a team-isolating node, an opponent-briefing node, and/or a teams-engaging node.

According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes the conflict-imitating nodule being executed during a/the solution-developing node of the simulation nodule.

According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may have the conflict-imitating nodule executed during a problem-predicting subnode, a problem-preventing subnode, a problem-detecting subnode, a problem-neutralizing subnode, and/or a damage-mitigation subnode of the solution-developing node.

According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture has a conflict-imitating nodule that is executed during a/the solution-revising node of the simulation nodule.

According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture has a conflict-imitating nodule that is executed during a problem-predicting subnode, a problem-preventing subnode, a problem-detecting subnode, a problem-neutralizing subnode, and/or a damage-mitigation subnode of the solution-revising node.

According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a reality-checking nodule that is used to endorse conclusions reached during execution of the simulation nodule.

According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a reality-checking nodule that includes a historically-inconsistent node that reviews historical data for inconsistencies; an entity-attempted node that reviews data collected by prior attempts by the entity; a public-broadcast node, and/or literature-scan node.

According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include the reality-checking nodule being is used to verify a defined problem, solution, and/or a risk evaluation in the simulation nodule.

According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture also includes a cross-pollinating nodule allows an exchange and comparison of conclusions, projections, estimations among simulation nodules.

According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may be used for a military application, wherein the entity is allied forces and the opponent is the enemy.

According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture can be used for a business application, wherein the entity is a business company and the opponent is a commercially competing company. According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture can be used for a financial application, wherein the entity is an economically-linked society and the opponent is non-economically linked party.

According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture can be used for a natural disaster application, wherein the entity is a geographic region and the opponent is a natural occurrence.

According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture can include a plurality of simulation nodules.

According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes four to eight simulation nodules.

According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes each simulation nodule being executed by a group of five to twenty people.

According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture is executed such that each group of people includes persons of intellectual diversity. The intellectual diversity includes backgrounds in science, engineering, business, military, religion, sociology, economics, and/or management. The group, or any groups utilizing the architecture may be assembled in the same general space. The group members may be assembled in a classroom-like environment. The group members may be assembled in an issue-analogous arena.

According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a plurality of outside informational nodules that supply information to the simulation nodule. The outside information nodules may stem from different sources. The informational nodules may also supply information to the systemization nodule, a/the role-reversing nodule, a/the conflict-imitating nodule, a/the reality-checking nodule, a/the cross-pollinating nodule, a/the technology-inventory nodule, a/the device-manufacturing nodule, and/or a/the mission-mapping nodule.

According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may also include a technology-inventory nodule that inventories the capability necessary to implement the solution developed to the problem. The technology-inventory nodule may also include a technology-inventorying node, a technology-gap identifying node, a capability-required requisitioning node, a success-criticality rating node, a gap-filling-technology proposing node, a design-differentiating node, and/or a take-forward-technology selecting node. The simulation nodule may include an internal technology-inventory node that inventories the capability necessary to implement the solution developed to the problem. The technology-inventory node may include a technology-inventorying subnode, a technology-gap identifying subnode, a capability-required requisitioning subnode, a success-criticality rating subnode, a gap-filling-technology proposing subnode, a design-differentiating subnode, and a take-forward-technology selecting subnode.

According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may also include a device-manufacturing nodule that manufactures a device necessary to implement the solution.

According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may also include a mission-mapping nodule that maps a mission to implement the solution.

According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a simulation nodule that includes an internal device-manufacturing node that manufactures a device necessary to implement the solution.

According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a simulation nodule that includes an internal mission-mapping node that maps a mission to implement the solution.

According to another aspect of the invention, a method may include executing a simulation architecture, and further may include manufacturing a device to implement the solution. The method may include the device-manufacturing step including designing the device, prototyping the device, testing the prototype, and fabricating the production device. The method further may include mapping a mission to implement the solution.

According to yet another aspect of the invention, a mission-mapping step of a method includes planning the mission, training for the mission, trial-running the mission, and launching the mission.

According to still another aspect of the invention, a system-of-systems architecture has a simulation nodule that includes an internal problem-defining node, an internal solution-developing node, an internal weakness-exposing node, an internal solution-revising node, and an internal solution-evaluating mode; wherein: the problem-defining node defines a problem that an opposer (enemy) could impose to injure an entity; the solution-developing node develops a solution to the problem defined by the problem-defining node; the weakness-exposing node exposes weaknesses in the solution developed by the solution-developing node; the solution-revising node revises the solution to address the weaknesses exposed in the weakness-exposing node; the weakness-exposing node also exposes weaknesses in the solution revised by the solution-revising node; the solution-evaluating node accesses risk of the weaknesses in the solution exposed in the weakness-exposing node; and the solution-revising node, the weakness-exposing node, and the solution-evaluating node are cycled until risk accessed by the solution-evaluating node is acceptable to the entity. The simulation nodule may further include an internal technology-comparison node wherein available technology is compared with technology necessary to implement the solution having the acceptable risk assessment by the solution-evaluating node.

According to a further aspect of the invention, a method for improving an entity through simulatory context includes the steps of: (a) defining a problem that an opposer (enemy) could apply to injure the entity; (b) developing a solution to the problem defined in step (a); (c) exposing weaknesses of the solution developed in step (b); (d) revising the solution to address weaknesses from step (c); (e) exposing weaknesses of the revised solution from step (d); (f) revising the solution again to address weaknesses from step (e); and (g) repeating steps (e) and (f) until weakness exposure is reduced to an acceptable risk. Step (a) is performed by: collecting data relevant to things that could hurt the entity; organizing at least of portion of the data into a system; and formulating a plan to hurt the entity. A device may be manufactured to incorporate the solution from step (e). A mission plan may be drafted to incorporate the solution from step (e). Participants may directed in steps (a), (b), (c) and/or (e) to conceptualize from the viewpoint of the opposer.

According to a still further aspect of the invention, a method of developing countermeasures for an entity includes the steps of: a) defining a problem that an opposer (enemy) could apply to injure the entity; b) developing a solution to the problem in step (a); c) exposing weaknesses of the solution in step (b); d) revising the solution to address weaknesses from step (c); e) repeating steps (c) through (d) until weakness exposure is reduced to an acceptable risk; f) manufacturing the device to incorporate the solution from step (e). Step (a) is performed by: collecting data relevant to things that could hurt the entity; organizing a portion of the data into a system; and formulating a plan to hurt the entity.

According to another aspect of the invention, a method of developing countermeasures to an adversary (enemy) includes the steps of: providing participants with a playbook containing information regarding the adversary; dividing the participants into groups; directing the groups to develop plans for achieving goals of the adversary; and having the participants critique one or more of the plans and/or develop systems to counter one or more of the plans, from a point of view of an opponent of the adversary.

According to yet another aspect of the invention, a method of developing countermeasures to an enemy includes the steps of: providing background information to participants regarding a problem related to the enemy; dividing the participants into red force groups; providing each of the red force groups with a playbook describing a scenario related to the problem, from the point of view of the enemy; directing the red force groups to develop plans for achieving goals of the adversary, as described in the playbooks, from the point of view of the enemies; having the red force groups identify vulnerabilities in the plans developed from the point of view of the adversary; dividing the participants into blue force groups; and directing the blue force groups to develop countermeasure plans to the red force plans, from the point of view of an opponent of the adversary.

According a further aspect of the invention, a method of developing countermeasures to an adversary (enemy) includes the steps of: providing participants with a playbook simulating information provided by or to the adversary; dividing the participants into groups; directing the groups to develop plans, from a point of view of the adversary, for achieving goals of the adversary; and having the participants critique one or more of the plans and/or develop systems to counter one or more of the plans, from a point of view of an opponent of the adversary. The playbook may simulate information that an adversary would provide to its cohorts, such as members or allies of the adversary. The dividing the participants into groups may involve dividing them into groups that simulate the adversary's group structure. The directing of the groups may include a task or tasks that involve immersing the participants in an adversarial mindset, so that the participants think and plan from that adversarial mindset.

To the accomplishment of the foregoing and related ends, the invention comprises the features hereinafter fully described and particularly pointed out in the claims. The following description and the annexed drawings set forth in detail certain illustrative embodiments of the invention. These embodiments are indicative, however, of but a few of the various ways in which the principles of the invention may be employed. Other objects, advantages and novel features of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description of the invention when considered in conjunction with the drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIGS. 1A-1C each show an example of simulation architecture, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.

FIGS. 2A-2H each show a simulation nodule 200 (and/or nodes and subnodes thereof) and its interaction with outside information nodules 100.

FIGS. 3A-3C show a systemizing nodule 300 and its interaction with nodules 100 and 200.

FIGS. 4A-4B show a role-reversing nodule 400 and its interaction with nodules 100, 200, and 300.

FIGS. 5A-5B show a conflict-imitating nodule 500 and its interaction with nodules 100, 200, and 400.

FIGS. 6A-6E show a reality-checking nodule 600 and its interaction with nodules 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500.

FIGS. 7A-7F show a cross-pollinating nodule 700 and its interaction with nodules 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600.

FIGS. 8A-8B show a technology-inventory nodule 800 and an analogous node 280 of the simulation nodule 200.

FIGS. 9A-9D show a device-manufacturing or mission-planning nodule 900 and analogous nodes 290 of the simulation nodule 200.

FIG. 10 is a high-level flow chart of a method of developing countermeasures, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 11 is an example of a first chart that may be used in performing the method of FIG. 10.

FIG. 12 is an example of a second chart that may be used in performing the method of FIG. 10.

FIG. 13 is an example of a third chart that may be used in performing the method of FIG. 10.

FIG. 14 is an example of a fourth chart that may be used in performing the method of FIG. 10.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The simulation architecture 10 is shown in FIG. 1A and it generally includes nodules 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, and 900 that form part of a system-of-systems network. The architecture 10 is intended for use by a party that is aligned (patriotically, politically, commercially, contractually, ethically, etc.) with a predetermined entity. By executing the architecture 10, the party can prepare to protect this entity against a problem that could be imposed by a predetermined opponent. In a military application, for example, the entity would be the allied forces and the opponent would be the enemy. In a business application, the entity would a particular corporation, and the opponent would be industrially competing companies. In a financial application, the entity-at-interest would be an economically-linked society, and the opponent would be non-ethical banking institutions. In a natural disaster application, the entity would be a geographic region, and the opponent would be Mother Nature herself.

The simulation architecture 10 can comprise one or more outside informational nodules 100. (FIGS. 1A-1C.) These nodules 100 research, gather, supply, or otherwise provide background information relevant to the subject simulation. The informational nodules 100 can comprise, for example, historical patterns, general observations, intelligence gained by strategic surveillance, etc. Preferably, the data originates from different (although sometimes overlapping) sources. The informational nodules 100 have a “one-way” information path in that data is conveyed from the nodules 100 to other nodules of the architecture 10 (e.g., simulation nodules 200, introduced below), but usually no information will be directed transmitted, transferred, or otherwise imported to the nodules 100. That being said, the feeding of information compiled during earlier simulation sessions into the information nodules 100 for later use is possible and contemplated.

The simulation architecture 10 comprises one or more simulation nodules 200. (FIG. 1A.) Each simulation nodule 200 is executed or performed by a group of people. A group can comprise, for example, five to twenty people, and is preferably compiled with the greatest possible amount of intellectual diversity. The backgrounds of the group members could include, for example, science, engineering, business, military, religion, sociology, economics, management, etc. The wider the diversity, the more robust the architectural results.

The group members can be geographically together (e.g., in the same room) during execution of the simulation nodule 200, and this is usually the easiest way for group members to express ideas and exchange input. Personal human contact is often an extremely effective catalyst for creativity, and in-person conversations foster this approach. But it is also possible to execute the simulation nodule 200 with group members situated at a plurality of locations, especially with the modern technologies (e.g., video-teleconferencing) that come very close to duplicating in-person communications.

The group members can be situated in a classroom-like environment, removed from the atmosphere of the issues being addressed. Such emotional distance may allow the group members to be more relaxed and thus more productive. But in some situations, it may be beneficial to introduce tension, so that group members can better appreciate the reactions of those involved in an actual occurrence. Hybrid arrangements are also possible. For example, group members could be moved between a classroom and an issue-analogous arena while executing the simulation nodule 200. And/or some group members could be located in a classroom and other group members could be located elsewhere.

The architecture 10 can be applied in a seminar-like setting and, if so, there will typically be four to eight simulation nodules 200. Too few simulation nodules 200 can limit the cross-pollination process while too many simulation nodules 200 can dilute its effects. That being said, a single simulation nodule 200, a pair of simulation nodules 200, three simulation nodules 200, and/or more than eight simulation nodules 200, are certainly possible and contemplated.

Each simulation nodule 200 includes a plurality of sequential internal nodes. In the context of the present architecture, the term “internal node” refers to the steps (or system of steps) that are performed solely by the members assigned to the respective nodular group (although they may receive information from the external data nodes 100). The illustrated stimulation nodules 200 can each comprises an internal problem-defining node 220, an internal solution-developing node 230, an internal weakness-exposing node 240, an internal solution-revising node 250, and an internal solution-evaluating node 260. (FIG. 2A.)

In the problem-defining node 220, a problem is defined that the opponent could impose to injure the entity. The problem-defining node 220 can include subnodes 221-223 that entail data collecting, data organizing, and problem-planning steps. (FIG. 2B.) The data collecting subnode 221 and/or the problem-planning steps can receive relevant information from the outside nodules 100.

In the solution-developing node 230, a solution is developed to the defined problem. The solution-developing node 230 can comprise a problem-predict subnode 231, a problem-prevent subnode 233, a problem-detect subnode 232, a problem-neutralize subnode 234, and a damage-mitigate subnode 235. (FIG. 2C.) Information from outside nodes 100 can be conveyed to one or more of these subnodes 231-235 during execution of the solution-developing node 230.

In many simulation circumstances, the most desirable solution will involve predicting the problem and then preventing it from occurring. The next most desirable solution will entail detecting the problem and then neutralizing its effects. The least desirable solution (but sometimes only) solution is mitigating the damage caused by the problem. Approaches can be adopted to shift analysis focus away from a damage-mitigating solution and towards what are usually more productive solutions. For example, a minimal amount of brainstorming space/time can be allotted to damage-mitigating issues so that the predict-prevent discussion and/or the detect-neutralize discussion monopolizes conversations.

In weakness-exposing node 240, the weaknesses to the solution developed during the execution of node 230 are exposed. The node 240 can include subnodes 241-244 that allow an analysis of the solution's vulnerabilities. (FIG. 2D.) For example, an effectiveness subnode 241 rates the solution's capability to prevent, neutralize, and/or mitigate the problem. A casualty-count subnode 242 takes into account the collateral effects of the solution. An interruption-potential subnode 243 gauges the opponent's chances of aborting the solution. And a recovery-time subnode 244 addresses the ability of the opponent to regroup and re-attack upon discovery of the solution. Some or all of the subnodes 241-244 can be supplied with relevant information from the outside nodes 100.

In the solution-evaluating node 250, the solution is evaluated in light of the weaknesses exposed during the execution of the node 240. The node 250 can comprise, for example, a weakness-weighing subnode 251, a summing subnode 252, a risk-success ratio subnode 253, and a risk-evaluation subnode 254. (FIG. 2E.) The subnode 251 can weigh the effectiveness, casualty, interruption, and recovery weakness factors of the solution, and the subnode 252 can sum these weighted factors. Based on this weighted sum, the subnode 253 can calculate the chances of success and/or risk and this calculation can be used to evaluate whether the solution would be acceptable to the entity. Outside nodules 100 can supply some or all of the subnodes of the solution-evaluating node 250 with pertinent information.

The solution-revising node 260 can comprise subnodes 261-265 similar to those in the solution-developing node 230 and one or more of these subnodes can receive information from the outside nodes 100. (FIG. 2F.) The weakness-exposing node 240, the solution-evaluating node 250, and the solution-revising node 260 are repeated (e.g., cycled) until a solution is with a risk factor acceptable to the entity. (FIG. 2G-2H.) This iteration builds on—and beyond—baseline familiarities and thereby steers participants towards a more robust appreciation of possible problem and solutions.

Now referring to FIGS. 3A-3C, the architecture 10 can include a systemizing nodule 300 with a series of internal nodes 310-320 that together force the incorporation of systems-thinking tenets into the relevant analysis. This nodule 300 prompts participants to view the opponent's actions as a system, not just a series of isolated acts. The party can thereby use systems-thinking to outwit the opponent's system.

The systemizing nodule 300 can be executed at various stages during the simulation exercise. The nodule 300 can be executed, for example, during the problem-defining node 220, and specifically, for example, during the data-organizing subnode 222. (FIG. 3B.) The systemizing nodule 300 can be executed during the solution-developing node 230 (during some, any, or all of the subnodes 231-235) and/or during the solution revising node 260 (during some, any or all of the subnodes 261-265). (FIG. 3C.) While systemizing nodule 300 may not be directly executed during weakness-exposing exercises, it lays the groundwork for recognizing (and then responding to) the vulnerabilities of each stage/object of the opponent's problem-imposing system.

In the illustrated nodule 300, an interdependence-examination node 310 examines the interconnectedness of the objects and the interaction of their attributes. A pattern-deciphering node 311 deciphers the emergent properties that holistically arise from the objects' interconnection and the attributes' interaction. A goal ascertaining node 312 ascertains the goal or final state resulting from the emergent properties. An input/output determining node 313 determines the objects, modifications, and/or changes that must enter/exit the system exploitation to reach specific goals. A transformation-tracing node 314 traces the transformation of inputs into outputs. An entropy-evaluation node 315 evaluates the disorder or randomness present during such transformation. A regulation-realization node 316 finds the feedback and regulation employed to insure predictable operation. A hierarchy-ranking node 317 ranks subsystems within their parent systems. A specialty-differentiating node 318 differentiates among specialized units and/or specialized functions. A convergence node 319 identifies alternate inputs that can achieve the same objectives, and a divergence node 320 identifies alternate objectives that can be attained from the same inputs.

By addressing each node 310-320 in the systemizing nodule 300, a complex system can be outlined in the flowchart-like manner. This approach reveals hidden systems, encourages the development of deliberate response systems, allows visualization of plans, permits validation of visions, uncovers traps, and/or predicts behavior. When used in conjunction with the simulation nodule 200, the systemizing nodule 300 integrates engineering expertise, cognitive psychology, and situational awareness. This integration accelerates the generation of innovative solutions to threats in the relevant arena. And sometimes more importantly, this simulation-systemization partnership fosters foreseeing unknown problems that could occur in the future.

The role-reversing nodule 400 aids the party in putting themselves mentally into the opponent's thought process and to “think like the enemy.” The party is caused to disassociate from a familiar mode and engage in opposite-agenda activity. By trading roles, perspective is added to the process and it is easier to project/predict adversarial behaviors and the reasons therefor.

To route role-reversing in realistic directions, the nodule 400 can include a planning node 410, a scouting node 411, a resource-acquiring node 412, a building node 413, a training node 414, a deploying node 415, and an assessing node 416. (FIG. 4A.) One, some, or all of these nodes 410-416 can be fed information from outside nodules 100 and/or they can be systemized via nodules 300.

The role-reversing nodule 400 may be especially useful during the problem-defining node 200, as it may help to identify not yet encountered problems. (FIG. 4B.) Likewise, the role-reversal can be helpful during the weakness-exposing node 240, as the opponent will be seeing the solution with fresh eyes, and a perspective towards exploiting its vulnerabilities. In most cases, the party will return to its entity-aligned state of mind when developing, revising, and/or evaluating solutions. That being said, an architecture situation executing the role-reversing node 400 during solution-related stages is certainly possible.

The conflict-imitating nodule 500 allows an issue to be played out or otherwise simulated in a competitive game-like setting. (FIG. 5A.) The nodule 500 can include a team-assignment node 510, a team-isolating node 511, an opponent-briefing node 512, and a teams-engaging node 513. In the illustrated conflict-imitating nodule 500, simulation nodule 200A and simulation nodule 200B are assigned to the opponent team and the simulation nodule 200C and 200D are assigned to the entity team. Outside information (e.g., team-assignments, combat-conducive data, etc.) can be supplied by the outside nodules 100, systemizing aid can be provided by the nodule 300, and/or role-reversing can be performed by the nodule 400. The conflict-imitating nodule 500 can be useful for testing the validity of solutions reached during the execution of nodes 230 and 260, and/or supplement the execution of the weakness-exposing node 240. (FIG. 5B.)

The reality-checking nodule 600 can be used to endorse conclusions reached during execution of the simulation nodule 200. This check can confirm understandings and regulate robustness during the creative progress. It builds participants' confidence in the simulation process and can add or verify insights.

The reality-checking nodule 600 can include a historically-inconsistent node 610 (that reviews historical data for inconsistencies), an entity-attempted node 611 (that reviews data collected by prior attempts by the entity), a public-broadcast node 612, and a literature scan node 613. (FIG. 6A.) The nodule 600 can (and probably will) receive information from outside nodules 100, and its nodes can be integrated with a systemizing nodule 300. The reality-checking nodule 600 can be used to verify a defined problem, solution, and/or a risk evaluation in the simulation nodule 200 (FIG. 6B), during systemizing nodes of the nodule 300 (FIG. 6C), during role-reversing nodes of the nodule 400 (FIG. 6D), and/or during briefing of the opponent team in nodule 500 (FIG. 6E).

The simulation architecture 10 can comprise a cross-pollinating nodule 700 that allows an exchange and comparison of conclusions, projections, estimations among simulation nodules 200 throughout the simulation process. (FIG. 7A.) The nodule 700 can comprise, for example, a node 710 that receives multi-nodular data, a node 711 that compiles this data, a node 712 that summarizes the compiled data, and a node 713 that distributes the summarized data back to one or more nodules and/or nodes. The nodule 700 (e.g., nodes 710-712) can receive information from outside nodules 100 and/or the nodule 700 (e.g., nodes 711-712) can systemize via nodules 300. The cross-pollinating nodule 700 can be employed in conjunction with the simulation nodule 200 (e.g., nodes 220, 230, 240, 260), the systemizing nodule 300, the role-reversing nodule 400, the conflict-imitating nodule 500 (e.g., node 511), and/or the reality-checking nodule 600. (FIGS. 7B-7F.)

Once an acceptable solution has been reached by the node 260 in the simulation nodule 200 (with or without the help of nodules 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700), the architecture 10 can invoke its technology-inventory nodule 800. This nodule 800 inventories the capability necessary to implement the solution in response to the defined problem. The nodule 800 can include a technology-inventorying node 810, a technology-gap identifying node 820, a capability-required requisitioning node 830, a success-criticality rating node 840, a gap-filling-technology proposing node 850, a design-differentiating node 860, and a take-forward-technology selecting node 870. Information can be supplied from outside nodules 100 and the systemizing nodules 300 can be employed with one or more of the nodes 810-870.

The node 810 inventories the technology necessary to implement the solution (and is especially enhanced by the solution being systemized) and the node 820 identifies the gaps in technology in this inventory. The node 830 is a requisitioning of gap-technology as if it was available and detailed specifications were being provided by a potential customer. The node 840 rates the criticality of the gap-technology to solution success (another step especially enhanced by the solution being systemized). In the node 850, technology is proposed based on the requisition and criticality, preferably with a systemized approach gained by drawing the systemizing nodule 300 into the process. The node 860 differentiates the proposed designs on particular factors (e.g., operational difficulty, cost, technology-readiness level, ease of manufacture, etc). The node 870 then selects the gap-technology equipment that should be taken forward.

The architecture 10 shown in FIG. 1A incorporates a plurality of the simulation nodules 200 shown in FIG. 2A. These nodules 200 can separately, jointly, and/or commonly execute the technology-inventory nodule 800 to select gap-technology equipment that should be taken forward.

The architecture 10 shown in FIG. 1B and FIG. 1C incorporates a plurality of the simulation nodules 200 shown in FIG. 2G and FIG. 2H, respectively. In these simulation nodules 200, there is no separate nodule 800 but instead each simulation nodule 200 includes an internal technology-inventory node 280. (FIG. 8B.) The node 280 includes subnodes 281-287 corresponding to the nodes 810-870 of the nodule 800. With these architectures, each simulation nodule 200 performs its own technology-inventory steps (although there may be cross-pollination thereamong via the nodule 700).

The architecture 10 can further comprise a device-manufacturing or mission-mapping nodule 900. (FIGS. 9A and 9B.) With this nodule 900, a device can then be designed and manufactured with unconventional features, and/or a mission can be planned that incorporates fresh strategies, to implement the solution.

If the manufacture of a product is the objective, the nodule 900 can comprise a device-designing node 910, a device-prototyping node 920, a prototype-testing node 930, a device-manufacturing node 940, a device-delivering node 950, a customer feedbacking node 960, and/or a design-updating node 970. (FIG. 9A.) If the execution of a mission is the objective, the nodule 900 can comprise a mission-planning node 910, a mission-training node 920, and mission-trialing node 930, a mission-preparing node 940, a mission-executing mode 950, a surveillance feedbacking node 960, and/or a mission debriefing node 970. (FIG. 9B.) Information can be supplied from outside nodules 100 and the systemizing nodules 300 can be employed with one or more of the nodes 810-870.

The architecture 10 shown in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B incorporates a plurality of the simulation nodules 200 shown in FIG. 2A and FIG. 2G, respectively. These nodules 200 can separately, jointly, and/or commonly execute the nodule 900 to manufacture a device and/or execute a mission. In the architecture 10 shown in FIG. 1C (which incorporates a plurality of the simulation nodules 200 shown in FIG. 2H), there is no separate nodule 900 but instead each simulation nodule 200 includes an internal node 290. (FIGS. 9C and 9D.) The node 290 includes subnodes 291-297 corresponding to the nodes 910-970 of the nodule 900.

FIG. 10 shows a high-level flow chart of a method 1000 for carrying out a method using the simulation architecture 10 (FIG. 1A) described above. In broad terms, the method 1000 is a method of approaching a problem by directing participants to think outside their experience level. The problem may be any of a wide variety of problems, especially including problems faced by organizations. In narrower terms the problem may characterized as one involving determining countermeasures in opposition to an enemy (also termed the “red force” or “adversary”), whether the enemy is an individual, a group of individuals, or an organizations. The enemies/problems may be any of a wide variety of things, including military enemies, criminals, terrorist organizations, business competitors, border security, drug and gang activity, business intelligence activity, homeland security, information protection, and competitive intelligence, to give only a few examples. The side for which the countermeasures are developed may be referred to herein as the “friendly force” or “blue force.” It will be appreciated that the friendly force may be any of a variety of sizes and types of groups or organizations. Normally the blue force, or some entity sympathetic with the blue force, will be the one implementing the method 1000.

One of the important aspects of the method 1000 is getting participants to approach the situation from a variety of mindsets, directions, or orientations. In some of the tasks participants will be asked to approach a situation from the point of view of the enemy or red force, trying to develop and/or improve an enemy system. In other tasks the participants will be asked to adopt the mindset of the friendly or blue force, developing countermeasures in response to plans (systems or schemes) developed when the participants were acting from the mindset of the red force.

The types or problems that may be subject to the method 1000 may vary considerably. However one common feature is that humans are on the opposing sides of the problem, adapting their behavior in response to or in anticipation of actions by the other side. Such problems have been termed “wicked problems,” problems for which technology alone is not sufficient, but for which social aspects of the problem often have to be understood and addressed. The role switching between red force mindset and blue force mindset is important for gaining a better understanding of the system. In essence the method 1000 may enable participants to think past and achieve more than the mere incremental gains in countermeasures that might be expected from examining only current conditions.

In step 1002 of the method 1000 background information on the problem is provided to the participants. People who have direct knowledge of the problem, experience with it, and/or have done extensive research into the problem, share information about the problem, why it needs to be solved, ways that have already been tried to solve it, and challenges associated with solving it (among other possibilities).

As part of step 1002 a set of starter tenets may be posted as a reference, to help anchor the process. A chart with the starter tenets may aid in communicating information to the participants to provide a jump-off point for assumptions to be mode in the process. For example, the chart may show certain tenets of the blue force, and well-educated assumptions concerning red force activities. This provides the participants with certain basic information from the point of view of the blue (friendly) forces, preceding a shift to the perception of the problem from the point of view of the red (enemy) force. The object at this point is not to provide the participants with the red force system, but rather to let that information develop later by examination of real events and exploration by the participants. It will be appreciated that this information may be presented in any of a variety of suitable ways.

In step 1006 the participants in the problem-solving enterprise are divided up into multiple groups. If the participants are initially considered as a group, this step might be referred to as dividing the participants into subgroups. The dividing up of the participants may be used to allow different groups to approach the problem from different directions, and/or to perform different tasks in the process. In addition it will be appreciated that it may advantageous to have different groups because different groups will develop different ideas, ideas that can be brought together for a result that is greater than the sum of its parts. In brainstorming often a number of smaller groups will generate more ideas than one large group.

In step 1008 one or more playbooks are provided to the participants in their groups. A playbook is a scenario, an activity to occur from the point of view of an enemy (adversary). The playbook presents participant with information concerning a situation faced by the enemy, perhaps in terms of a goal to be achieved, with procedures to achieve them, and resources available. The playbook aids in producing an enemy-oriented mindset, encouraging the participants to approach the scenario from the point of view of an enemy that is trying to accomplish the enemy goals of the scenario. Toward this end, the playbook may be written as if intended for enemy personnel, so as to encourage participants to adopt the mindset of the enemy personnel that is the (purported) intended audience of the playbook. The playbook may be in written form, but may include other types of media, such as video. Video segments may be adopted based on various criteria, for instance because they demonstrate a blue force problem or vulnerability; because they demonstrate red force tactics and capabilities; because they provide tactical context for scenario assumptions; or to provide richer detail in describing or conveying the scenario, to better give participants a flavor of the situation of the playbook, to facilitate getting participants in the right mindset.

To give one example, the playbook may include a manual for a terrorist organization trying to accomplish a given goal, such as carrying out a series of certain types of terrorist attacks. The playbook could provide various roles needed to carry out a plan, and various instructions and procedures for carrying out attacks, possibly including procedures for reviewing and improving operations. The playbook could be written as if its intended audience was members of the terrorist organization, and may incorporate what is known about enemy motivations. Videos of actual attacks, for example drawn from the Internet, may be made a part of the playbook. The playbook written material may cause participants to think through a real event, a process that can be reinforced by video of the same or a similar event. This is a first step toward participants internalizing a red force mindset.

Different playbooks may be used by different groups, with the different playbooks addressing different aspects of the problem. The playbooks guide a sort of simulation by the participants, in developing a hypothesized red force system. Providing different playbooks adds different perspectives as an input, facilitating later development of hypothesized systems.

In step 1010 the groups are given instructions to develop one or more red force plans for accomplishing the goals set out in the playbook. This activity is to be carried out with the participants adopting the role of the enemy (red force), trying to create and improve plans, a term which is broadly intended to encompass both procedures, and systems for carrying out of procedures. The developing of plans may involve or be aided by mapping, such as by using the system mapping chart 1020 shown in FIG. 11. The chart 1020 allows participants to map out elements of a (possible) system for carrying out the playbook scenario, such as acquiring resources, building, training, deploying, assessing, planning, and scouting. As indicated on the chart 1020, participants may be directed to fill in elements on the chart 1020, and make connections between them. The result is an example of a mindmap. Mindmaps provide a free-flowing way to parse ideas and develop detail for each of them. They function as work surfaces for participants to exchange and build on ideas.

The participants may be given some input regarding possible elements of the red force system. For instance, some or all of the groups may be given a list or chart (or other information) regarding some likely elements of the red force system. However an important part of step 1010 is creative work by the participants in coming up with their own hypothesized red force systems.

Particular attention may be directed to system vulnerabilities, and to fixing or avoiding those vulnerabilities, either in the step 1010 or in a later step, from the point of view of the enemy trying to improve its overall system or scheme. The weaknesses or points of vulnerability may be identified at the time the chart 1020 is filled out, or in a later step or substep. The creative aspect of step 1010, both the mapping and identification of red force vulnerabilities, aids in getting participants to gain a better understanding of the dynamic social situation.

In step 1024 the assembly of participants may be divided into blue force countersystems or countermeasures groups (either the same groups as in step 1006 or in different groups), and directed to work on blue force systems. The participants are directed to adopt the mindset of the blue force when performing this task. The groups may have different tasks, approaching the blue system countermeasure issue from different directions, with different instructions. One group (or subteam) may be a revision group that looks at current blue force countermeasure systems or concepts, with instructions to revise and/or update the current blue force countermeasures in light of the red force systems mapped or otherwise produced in step 1010. Another group or subteam may be a creation group that creates countermeasure plans or systems in light of the red force systems of step 1010, without examining current blue force countermeasures. It will be appreciated that there may be multiple revision groups and/or multiple creation groups. Having different groups examine the situation from different directions and with different information may aid in producing a wider range of potential solutions. Creative solutions may be fostered by the creation group, yet providing the revision group with information on present countermeasures ensures that information on present practices is not lost.

The creative group may use a mindmap, such as the chart 1030 shown in FIG. 12, as a work space in performing its task. The chart 1030 may be purposed skewed in its layout. It may provide less space where usual situations emerge (the area labeled “mitigate” in the illustrated embodiment), with the view of discouraging usual solutions that may have proven less than adequate. The skewed chart 1030 provides the creative group with an unfamiliar work surface that serves to keep easy, non-inventive solutions from taking over.

Although there are advantages to providing different groups with different tasks and/or different information for step 1024, it will be appreciated that alternatively the development of blue force systems may be accomplished by only a single group, or by different groups charged with the same task. It will further be appreciated that a greater number of groups can be employed, with additional groups possibly repeating the same tasks as the creation group and the revision group. Another alternative is to have different groups create or revise systems handing different aspects of the problem or scenario.

Next the groups merge their blue force strategy ideas together in step 1034. The sharing allows adding perspectives to produce an improved countermeasure strategy. The merger of the ideas of the different groups results in an improved countermeasure system/plan that combines the best aspects of each group's output. This step serves to combine reality with purposeful innovation. The merger or consolidation may produce combined blue force system architecture or plan.

After the consolidation of step 1036, the participants produce output regarding what useful has been learned about the problem (and solutions). The output produced may be in a form that is useful to the host or sponsor of the event, which may be associated with the blue force. A description of the hypothesized red force system may be produced, along with a description of the strengths of that red force system.

Charts may be provided to the participants to channel the output into useful forms. One example is a chart listing vulnerabilities 1040, shown in FIG. 13. The chart 1040 provides an opportunity to list perceived red force (enemy) vulnerabilities based on the red force system or plan produced, a blue (friendly) force tenet to which each vulnerability applies (predicting, preventing, detecting, neutralizing, or mitigating, for example), and suggestions on how the enemy force can attempt to overcome these vulnerabilities.

FIG. 14 shows another type of possible output, a chart 1044 for technology prioritization. The chart 1044 allows participants to identify currently unmet capabilities, required capabilities, criticality of the item, potential technical solutions, differentiators for the technical solutions (such as difficulty and/or cost), and technologies to take forward. This focuses the group on the technology needed to implement system solutions, provides a prioritized “to-do” list as output, and summarizes the work.

It will be appreciated that the method 1000 described above is only an example. Not all of the steps described above should be taken as essential or critical, and one or more steps may be omitted or modified in suitable ways, if desired.

Although the tools and methods have been shown and described with respect to certain embodiments, it is obvious that equivalent alterations and modifications will occur to others skilled in the art. In regard to the various functions performed by the above described elements (e.g., components, combinations, systems, devices, etc.), the terms (including a reference to a “means”) used to describe such elements are intended to correspond, unless otherwise indicated, to any element which performs the specified function of the described element (i.e., that is functionally equivalent), even though not structurally equivalent to the disclosed structure which performs the function. In addition, while a particular feature of the invention may have been described above with respect to only one or more of several illustrated embodiments, such feature may be combined with one or more other features of the other embodiments, as may be desired and advantageous for any given or particular application. 

1. A method of developing countermeasures to an adversary (enemy), the method comprising: providing participants with a playbook simulating information provided by or to the adversary; dividing the participants into groups; directing the groups to develop plans, from a point of view of the adversary, for achieving goals of the adversary; and having the participants critique one or more of the plans and/or develop systems to counter one or more of the plans, from a point of view of an opponent of the adversary.
 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising, as part of the directing and before the having, directing the participants to assess the plans, from the point of view of the adversary.
 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the directing the participants to assess includes directing the participants to find vulnerable points in the plans, from the point of view of the adversary.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the directing includes creating a system map of a system for achieving the goals of the adversary.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the creating the system map includes providing a chart to the participants to produce the map.
 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the directing further includes directing the participants to identify vulnerable points of the system.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the information contained in the playbook includes a scenario.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the having the participants critique and/or develop countersystems includes dividing the participants into two or more countersystem groups that critique and/or develop countersystems from different points of view.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the countersystems groups include: a revision group that revises/updates current countersystems for use against the adversary; and a creation group that creates new countersystems without being informed of the current countersystems.
 10. The method of claim 9, further comprising combining the revision group and the creation group to share and improve countersystem development.
 11. The method of claim 1, further comprising, after the critiquing and/or developing countersystems, merging the participants together into a single group to share thoughts.
 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the merging includes developing a list of technologies that needs to be developed for the countersystems.
 13. The method of claim 12, further comprising prioritizing the technologies.
 14. A method of developing countermeasures to an enemy, the method comprising: providing background information to participants regarding a problem related to the enemy; dividing the participants into red force groups; providing each of the red force groups with a playbook describing a scenario related to the problem, from the point of view of the enemy; directing the red force groups to develop plans for achieving goals of the adversary, as described in the playbooks, from the point of view of the enemies; having the red force groups identify vulnerabilities in the plans developed from the point of view of the adversary; dividing the participants into blue force groups; and directing the blue force groups to develop countermeasure plans to the red force plans, from the point of view of an opponent of the adversary.
 15. The method of claim 14, bringing the blue force groups together to merge their countermeasure plans into a single merged countermeasure plan.
 16. The method of claim 14, wherein the blue force groups include a creation group and a revision group; and wherein the directing the blue force groups includes: directing the revision group to use current countermeasures as a starting point in developing its countermeasure plan; and directing the creation group to develop its countermeasure plan without reference to the current countermeasures.
 17. The method of claim 14, wherein the directing the red force groups includes directing the red force groups to engage in mind mapping.
 18. The method of claim 14, wherein the directing the blue force groups includes directing the blue force groups to engage in mind mapping.
 19. The method of claim 14, further comprising producing output after the directing the blue force groups; wherein the producing output includes listing vulnerabilities of the red force plans.
 20. The method of claim 14, further comprising producing output after the directing the blue force groups; wherein the producing output includes producing a technology prioritization chart or list. 